In my opinion, I believe with shoes. People will argue that different shoes will add different height, but basketball is not played bare-foot. Without shoes measurement seems irrelevent, making a players heights a novelty rather than something that is necessary information needed to determine matchups.
Other threads have been dominated by this type of talk (I for one am guilty of it, myself), so let's settle it here.

If I had to choose, I'd prefer with shoes too. But in all honesty - as long as it's consistent across the board, I don't care that much. Though some people on this board seem to be prepared to argue almost anything to the death.

Without shoes is far more important because it's a far more reliable measurement. The "with shoes" measures are completely unreliable, varying by as much as 3 inches depending on the type of shoes the player is wearing. There is never a guarantee that the player will play games in the same pair of shoes that he showed up to the measuring session in.

Players who show up to two combines (because they withdrew from the draft after the first one due to seeing their low draft stock) almost always get taller "in shoes" but don't get taller "out of shoes." Think about that. If you want hard data to back that up, search for the article about it at brewhoop.com.

Without shoes is far more important because it's a far more reliable measurement. The "with shoes" measures are completely unreliable, varying by as much as 3 inches depending on the type of shoes the player is wearing. There is never a guarantee that the player will play games in the same pair of shoes that he showed up to the measuring session in.

Players who show up to two combines (because they withdrew from the draft after the first one due to seeing their low draft stock) almost always get taller "in shoes" but don't get taller "out of shoes." Think about that. If you want hard data to back that up, search for the article about it at brewhoop.com.

Without, as shoes introduces a variable. In reality though, an inch or two in height doesn't matter all that much in the NBA - look at Chris Bosh, whose main height is in his damn neck (you don't block shots with your head, although Bosh almost could).

Without, as shoes introduces a variable. In reality though, an inch or two in height doesn't matter all that much in the NBA - look at Chris Bosh, whose main height is in his damn neck (you don't block shots with your head, although Bosh almost could).

Which begs another interesting question, why isn't standing reach more highly regarded? We hear a lot about hieght and wingspan, why not standing reach?

Which begs another interesting question, why isn't standing reach more highly regarded? We hear a lot about hieght and wingspan, why not standing reach?

I think that it may not be considered important, but when GMs draft players, sometimes they say 'He plays bigger than he is' and tend to bring out the standing reach and wingspan stats. I's more important with big men, because you guard with your hands, not the head, so a high standing reach is key with defence.

I think that it may not be considered important, but when GMs draft players, sometimes they say 'He plays bigger than he is' and tend to bring out the standing reach and wingspan stats. I's more important with big men, because you guard with your hands, not the head, so a high standing reach is key with defence.